Marvel/Jimmy Kimmel Live/YouTube
A wave of geek pride swept popular culture sometime in the latter half of the past decade — regrettably, long after many of us really needed it (damn those high school years). We've seen the phenomenon unfold in the form of Lucasfilm buzz, Star Trek reboots, and (most notably) the Marvel Universe on the big screen. Comic book devotees were not only seeing their favorite stories and characters take faithful shape in Disney's behemoth film franchise, but were sharing this love, for the first time, with everyone else. The mainstream.
As a subtle form of counterculture against an existing blockbuster fare so devoid of brains and heart that it bordered on nihilism, Hollywood grabbed for the passion that so many comic fans had been thriving on just below the scope of public awareness. Studios stumbled upon the pure gold that had been funding comic fandom for years, enlisting not those who might dilute the nerd lexicon with accessibility, but bona fide fluent-speakers to translate the language to the big screen: Joss Whedon, Matthew Vaughn, Joe Johnston, and the like. And the result wasn't an alienation of the American majority, but its integration with the flavorful subculture that had for so long offered shelter to those otherwise homeless. At last, being one of these long ostracized few was the key to popular authority. Encyclopedic knowledge about S.H.I.E.L.D., Asgard, and the Extremis virus became a bejewled anchor that'd dock you a coveted spot in any party conversation. Being a geek — historied, analytical, and didactic about these precious worlds — was finally in. So that would make it the perfect time to launch one of the Marvel Comics world's more obscure (at least compared to Iron Man) properties, Guardians of the Galaxy.
A film version of the Dan Abnett/Andy Lanning creation was first mentioned as a possibility back in 2010, ascending to the altogether surprising, exciting, and worrisome green light platform two years later, breaking public via an announcement at 2012's San Diego Comic-Con. We had only a few months prior seen The Avengers sock the American people with a regime of jingoistic solidarity that you'd ordinarily need a national tragedy to instill, but apprehensions remained: could Marvel Studios — yes, even that very Marvel Studios — get geeky enough for this wacko publication? But we might not have been asking the right question. A year and a half later, we have our first authentic taste of what the suits at Disney and their latest on-lot artisan James Gunn are offering with Guardians of the Galaxy. The trailer came forth via the good graces of Tuesday night's Jimmy Kimmel Live! (on the Mouse-handled network ABC), hitting the Internet moments later and eliciting every conceivable response from the Twittersphere: looks great, looks dumb, looks fun, looks weird, looks like magic, looks like trash, looks too... too...
"Geeky" wouldn't be the right word — far from it — though no one could claim that this seemed like your average blockbuster. Its hero, a sitcom star with a new vault-load of Lego Movie money (Chris Pratt), humorously laments the meager scale of his reputation and doles out the bird without reservation. Its second-in-commands are a cool-handed assassin (Zoe Saldana) and a shirtless bulge on a perpetual revenge quest (Dave Bautista). And then there's a raccoon and a tree (the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel, respectively). A gallery of rejects, introduced by John C. Reilly and a disapproving Peter Serafinowicz all in perfect tempo with an action montage and the musical stylings of Blue Swede. It's all pretty f**king gosh darn ridiculous, as such bound to ordain contesters: the vein-deep geeks so rigidly affixed to the spirited but sincere masterworks of Stan Lee, the Avengers franchise fans confused by the apparent shift in the comic book movie machine's gears. But just as Phase I came about as an act of defiance to the stoic norm, Guardians seems to be speaking on behalf of its own breed of second-class citizen. A legion from the social culture underbelly with even less claim to fertile territory than the geeks had. This is the beginning of a new wave for dork culture.
Marvel/Jimmy Kimmel Live/YouTube
Call it semantics, but you'll just be proving how estranged you are from each locale (although despite what the message boards tell you, there's no shame in not being any kind of nerd). Where the geeks are proud members of a long oppressed and unappreciated kingdom, dorks are more "man without a country" types. Perhaps more accurately identified as schmoes, goons, oddballs, outcasts, dinks, freaks, or (if you want to stick with the classics) weirdos, those in the dork variety don't boast the benefits of a grounded underworld, nor a bible to which they might adhere. The dorks — proverbial loners — have only themselves. Their intellect, their sense of humor. Where many geeks stray to science fiction and fantasy, dorks stray to comedy, a medium as readily conducive to inward speculation and innovation as the comic book scene's is to outward. As such, with action and adventure laying claim to the most popular of the cinematic world's genres (and no traditionally unified voice, by nature), it's been hard for the dorks to really get their blockbuster out there. But Guardians of the Galaxy looks like it, in a number of ways.
First, this is a movie about dorks, not geeks. Although The Avengers saw a spat of dissimilar heroes coming together for the greater good, that central conceit is what identifies them as members of the geek class. Separately or together, they're all part of something larger than themselves: justice. An element that is often shunned and cast away by the powers that be, but that holds strong and electric beneath the surface until inevitably erupting with righteous power. In Guardians, we have a collection of criminals. Vandals, renegades, murderers. People (and aliens, and rodents, and trees) whose only unifying quality seems to be strength in numbers, or maybe just a distaste for the very idea of authority. That doesn't mean we won't root for 'em, but you can bet it won't be the same old band-of-brothers story that we saw back in May '12.
On the same token, not a one of them seems to belong anywhere. Again, we compare with the Avengers crew: Steve Rogers reigned supreme in the WWII-era American Army, Tony Stark was the Steve Jobs of his own electronics industry, Thor staked claim to a literal throne back in Asgard. But look at the Guardians: Drax the Destroyer (Bautista) lost his planet and family, Gamora (Saldana) abandons her evil upbringing in favor of an existential (albeit still quite violent) journey, nobody's heard of Peter "Star-Lord" Quill (Pratt), and... again, do we even have to say anything about the raccoon and the tree? As Serafinowicz harumphs in the trailer, this team doesn't come off as your motley band of underdog heroes. They look like "a bunch of a-holes." (Hey, maybe that's the new subculture that Guardians is aiming for.)
Marvel/Jimmy Kimmel Live/YouTube
Second, this is a movie for dorks. Not only is it championing the agenda of these walking, shooting, and tree-ing bags of nonsense, it's doing so with the attitude that a dork approaches his or her every thought with. Sure, The Avengers was funny — and irreverent, no doubt — but it was sincere. Genuine all the way through in everything it shepherded from source to script to screen. Guardians, as much as we can tell so far, is an explosion in goofiness. It introduces its central hero with a joke — not only at his expense, but at that of the movie itself. It undermines its own severity over and over, with cursing intergalactic agents, an eruption of '70s pop music, and a destruction of all the principles on which the ideas of traditional heroism are founded. Logically speaking, it doesn't seem like we're supposed to root for or believe in these dinguses. They don't have the inherent nobility of your geek heroes — the moral fiber that stems from a grounding in worlds of tribalistic fantasy. These guys are free agents, and the movie looks like it is embracing that in its delivery of character, story, ambiance, and comedy. And that last one is the most important indicator here. Geek culture is riddled with fun, but takes its staples very seriously. There's no room for that when you're talking about dorks.
So why now? Why is a dork movement on the rise as a counter to the very uprising that dissipated mainstream nihilism? Really, its a breakdown of subcultures altogether... or a step toward this notion. Geek culture came about to usher in a "different" group. Movies had long spoken to a specific populace, ignoring the creative, deserving, eager collections of comic book aficionados. Geek culture gave rise to the Second World. But dork culture is the Third World, or maybe no World at all. The dork wave is about true individualism. No adherence to any cultural law above survivalism. Where the geeks spent decades building speakeasy churches in which to decree their gods and psalms sanct — quietly, lest the ruling classes catch wind of this heresy — the dorks have been working corners for a bite to eat, not buying into the political reign or to the defiant uprisings. Not worrying about (or successfully abetting the demands of) what demanded of either the mainstream or the geeky, just looking for the things that made them laugh, feel, and think.
They haven't been looking for a band with which to take up — as if they'd be welcome into one if they had — reveling instead in inimitability... not without a healthy sum of self-loathing, mind you (again, damn those high school years). Throughout, they knew, or hoped, that they had something figured out. That someday, past the downfall of the mainstream, past the uprise of geek culture, they'd get to tell their story on the biggest screens imaginable. And it all starts here. Crank the ooga chakas.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
| Follow @Hollywood_com

MTV
If you haven't been watching the new season of MTV's Real World you probably think you're not missing out on much. You probably think it's the same old thing. Seven strangers picked to live in a house and get drunk and hook up and have occasionally introspective conversations about life and/or politics together, right? You are so wrong. You are so wrong it hurts.Now, if you've seen the commercials for this season you already know that a new twist was put in place. Producers got together a group of good looking young people, all of whom recently got out of long-term relationships. They let those people live together for 6 weeks under the premise that it was the same old Real World, and then BOOM! They moved all of their exes into the house (save for one girl, whose ex is legitimately a rock star and busy on tour). It has been an epic ride in epicry and you need to start tuning in. Here's a recap of the last episode. You're not ready:
At first it seems like a cheap trick on the side of the producers to, clearly, stir up drama and get more people watching. And, well, it's working. But it also seems like the cast members were carefully chosen. Now that the exes have moved in, all hell has not exactly broken loose. As far as reality TV stars go, it has to be said that these are intelligent, emotionally balanced (-ish) folks! They're not tearing each other to bits (just yet), but they are reacting as anyone with a pulse and a few hang-ups would if they were forced to live with someone about whom they have conflicted feelings.
But here's the other brilliant move Real World made this season. They are making it totally and completely obvious that we are watching a television show and it's very exciting. In the past, and on other reality shows, we have seen those precious moments when cameramen get caught in a shot, or (in the case of shows like the Real Housewives) security has to step in and regulate. Real World is taking it a step further and purposefully showing cameramen and producers interacting with the cast. Instead of making the confessionals sound like monologues, we now hear the producers asking questions and prompting cast members to think about what's happening on the show, and to explain themselves. It's a small detail, but it actually works to make the show feel more real and more honest.
In a way, this season seeks to redefine reality television by both playing with it in very dramatic way and drawing attention to the innate "fakeness" of it all. There are cameras everywhere, there are producers guiding thought and perhaps even influencing actions, and MTV is now unafraid to blatantly show this. Twenty-nine seasons in and the show is still trying to be innovative, which is definitely a good thing. Oh, and throw in the fact that someone may very well be pregnant (because, as we all know, there's nothing like a good ol' fashioned pregnancy plot twist) and you simply must tune in. Now.
Follow @Hollywood_com Follow @shannonmhouston
//

Apega/WENN
So, here's the thing about getting a girl pregnant while you're on a break from your long-term relationship with someone else: it's bad. Don't do it, stop doing it. I say this because, recently, NBA baller for the Miami Heat Dwayne Wade and rapper Ludacris both put a pockmark on their relationships when they went ahead and decided to get other women pregnant while on a break. Wade is now engaged to Gabrielle Union, who he's been dating since forever... but six weeks before their engagement his son with Aja Metoyer was born. That's not awkward. But I guess it's fine, 'cause she's got a pretty big rock on her finger?
Luda and Eudoxie Agnan have been together since 2009, but that didn't stop him from getting Tamika Fuller pregnant with a baby girl. He and Eudoxie are back together now. Also not awkward for anyone.
Dwayne and Ludacris have both been singing the same song, and it goes a little something like this:
C'mon guys. The "we were on a break" excuse is such a lame reason to bring another human being into the world. Seriously. There has to be another way to deal with the emotional pain, right?
From here on out, we are instituting a one year minimum requirement for a "break" to officially be considered a "break-up," wherein other parties are permitted to move forward and impregnate new people at their own risk. We just made that rule. Everyone follow it, and, like, 35 percent of the world's problems will be solved. Seriously.
Follow @Hollywood_com Follow @shannonmhouston
//

CBS
If you caught the opening at at this year's Grammy Awards, you will probably never look at your dining room chair the same way again. Beyoncé took the stage and got amazingly NSFW delivering her new hit "Drunk In Love," and she was joined by her hubby Jay Z for the epic performance. In case you missed it, here's what it looks like when one of the sexiest women alive comes to play at the Grammys:
Between those Saint Laurent tights, the custom-made bra, and the amazing things she did to that chair, it's easy to see why people thought she went overboard on the sexy. And indeed, her performance was super-sexual, it was too hot for TV, and it was definitely not for children. But since when is Beyoncé's music only supposed to appeal to the kids? Many of her fans are around her age and older, which means we were young and age-appropriate when she was making music videos like "Bills, Bills, Bills" with Destiny's Child:
Oh yeah. You know you miss the "Bills, Bills, Bills" days. Anyway, now we're grown and age-appropriate for "Yoncé":
So, what's the problem? Well, answering the question of whether or not King Bey is getting too raunchy for her fan base is difficult. She's a superstar and not limited to one specific demographic. There are little girls as young as Blue Ivy who know her music, and we now have insane, visual proof that even Vin Diesel is a superfan. So on the one hand, if your elementary school-age kids were up watching the Grammys with you, the minute you heard the "Drunk In Love" track begin, and you saw Beyoncé looking like she was about to do bad things to that chair, you probably should have sent them to their room. Because, yes, she is definitely too raunchy for that particular fan base. But otherwise, no. She's the perfect amount of raunchy, at least for most of us.
And lest we forget, Bey's sex appeal has been a huge part of her act since she first went solo. Or have we forgotten the "Uh-Oh" dance that shut everything down and completely changed the game?
So we're Team Bey on this one. And we'd appreciate it if she'd teach us how to do, well, everything that she's doing right now in life.
Follow @Hollywood_com Follow @shannonmhouston
//

IFC Films
Tuesday night was a dangerous time to log onto Twitter. Innocent passersby would have caught flying mortar from both sides of a fresh, rapidly heating debate: a phenomenon that will be deemed by the history books Greta Grip! or How I Learned to Stop Gerwigging Out and Meet Your Dad. See, 30-year-old writer, actor, dancer, Barnard graduate, Noah Baumbach dater, Barack Obama birthday sharer, and effectual embodiment of the contemporary dreamer's existential quest Greta Gerwig was cast as the lead of CBS' groan-worthy developing spin-off series How I Met Your Dad. The shot heard 'round the world.
Just shy of nobody has been looking forward to How I Met Your Dad, obviously born from the network's mainstay How I Met Your Mother (coming to an end this March), since it was announced in the fall of 2013. On the one hand, Gerwig's involvement as its star — playing Sally, a womanchild stuck in a dead-end marriage — and possible writer, as revealed by The Hollywood Reporter, does make How I Met Your Dad inherently more appealing. On the other, many are disappointed to learn that Gerwig's future will be driven primarily by a network television sitcom that we were all ready to write off before any of this news broke. And there are plenty other hands in this fistfight. Here's a stab at a breakdown (organization-wise) of the breakdown (emotional chaos-wise) that ensued after Gerwig was announced to be CBS' new leading lady.
"We're disappointed, Greta."Greta Gerwig in a network sitcom? A network sitcom spin-off? A network sitcom spin-off that sounds basically like the same exact show as the network sitcom off of which it is spinning?
"We support you, Greta."Gerwig has a right to choose whatever projects she finds interesting.
"But we want you to do other things, Greta."This isn't coming from a place of malice, but love. We love Frances Ha, and want to see you spend your time making more movies like that, as opposed to shackled to the network machine.
"But we want you to save television, Greta."Now that someone interesting is involved as a star and writer, maybe How I Met Your Dad won't be so bad!
"But we think you're selling out, Greta!"(Here's where it started to get ugly.)
"But we think there's nothing wrong with making a little dough, Greta!"With a long career ahead of you and aspirations to make creatively daring films, getting a little funding might be the best move right about now.
"But WE think the only way to maintain an output of creative integrity is to say no to the machine, Greta."Or, if you're like Andy Kaufman, to just f**k with the network from the inside. But Greta Gerwig seems nice.
"But WE don't even think any of these people saw your movies in theaters, Greta."Netflixing The Dish &amp; the Spoon doesn't do her any good!
"But WE blame that on the studios' unwillingness to rely on you as a brand, Greta!"And also, we were just really swamped cramming for finals when your last six movies were playing in theaters.
"But WE think that the public familiarity that comes with a starring role on a network sitcom is the exact way to establish yourself as a brand, Greta!"Now our parents will know who Greta Gerwig is, and that's a good thing.
"BUT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOU SUCCUMBING TO THE WHIMS OF THE SYSTEM, GRETA."Don't be a cog!
"BUT WE RECALL A TIME WHEN YOU WERE IN MOVIES LIKE ARTHUR AND NO STRINGS ATTACHED, GRETA."How come nobody was b**ching and moaning about that?
"BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHO YOU WERE THEN, GRETA!"I mean, we knew, we just didn't know.
"NEITHER DID WE. BUT TO BE HONEST, NO STRINGS ATTACHED WASN'T AS BAD AS EVERYONE SAID IT WAS, GRETA!"It had its moments.
"WELL... WHY ARE YOU GETTING SO MAD AT US!?!"Isn't chastising actors for disappointing choices what we do? Isn't that our thing?! Isn't open discussion about artistic pursuits the whole idea?! Isn't it a good thing that we're this passionate about someone like Greta Gerwig in the first place?!
"ZOOEY DESCHANEL!!!"Case in point.
Things kind of hit a wall around here, without either side giving way to the other's ideas. But in the cold light of day, we can profess: we love Greta Gerwig. We think she's talented and creative and will likely breathe new life into what could have been a very stale spin-off. But we also hope this doesn't hold her back from more interesting pursuits, preferably on the big screen. So here's waiting for the next bit of Greta Gerwig news — may it be one that we can all get behind. Or at least that she's passionate about.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

DC Comics
Fox's Batman prequel Gotham is officially starting to take flight. The show, which will chronicle the career of Detective James Gordon and the way the city's crime was handled before the Caped Crusader swooped in, recently added four new cast members to its ranks. Joining Southland alum Ben McKenzie as Gordon will be Zabryna Guevara, who will play Captain Essen, Gordon's boss and head of the GCPD homicide squad; Sean Pertwee, who will take on the role of Alfred Pennyworth, the Wayne family's loyal butler; and Erin Richards as Barbara Kean, and ER doctor and Gordon's fiancee. However, it's the final bit of casting news that's really going to excite Batmans fans: Robin Lord Taylor has been tapped to play Oswald Cobblepot, a.k.a. The Penguin, Batman's most gentlemanly of arch-rivals.
The Penguin is one of Batman's oldest and most conniving foes, and he has played a significant role in almost every Batman storyline since his introduction in 1941. However, it's been some time since he was last seen onscreen in a live-action production; the character last appeared in Tim Burton's 1992 film Batman Returns. He was famously left out of Christopher Nolan's trilogy, and since his absence upset some fans who would have loved to see him terrorize Christian Bale, choosing the Penguin to be the main villain of Gotham could be a good way for the show to win over the more reluctant parties. Regardless of how physically deformed his character is interpreted to be, the Penguin tends to be one of the easier Batman villains to adapt, since his mafia connections and criminal behavior allow him to become implicated in just about any storyline.
It seems like those connections will play a significant role in his Gotham storyline, since according to the official character description, he "is a low-level psychopath for gangster Fish Mooney who hides his sadistic lust for power behind an exquisitely polite demeanor," with "the brains of a chess grandmaster and the morals of a jackal." Although the description does set up the possibility that the Penguin will first come to the attention of Det. Gordon through his work for Mooney, it is notably missing any mention of his affinity for birds and his high-tech, weapons-grade umbrellas. It's possible that since the show will be focusing on the backstories and origin stories of many of its characters, the plot will start before Cobblepot has properly transformed into his villainous alter ego, and since he is described as being a "low-level" thug, it seems as if Gotham will chronicle his rise to super villainy, forcing him to face off against Gordon before he can take on Batman.
The show's description of the Penguin also doesn't mention any physical deformities that Cobblepot might have, although that is a characteristic that tends to vary in appearance and severity depending on the artist and the adaptation. In the comics, he is often depicted as being a short, rotund man with thinning hair and a beak-like nose — none of which are features that Taylor shares. Of course, since Gotham is designed as a prequel, viewers could see his looks grow increasingly similar to those of his comic counter parts over the show's run... or they could be going for a more realistic approach, and simply find other ways to hint at the ways Cobblepot resembles his namesake bird. The more contentious issue, however, would be his missing flippers. Although the flippers were only developed for Burton's film, where the Penguin was conceived as a former circus freak intent of getting revenge on all of the upper-class snobs who mistreated him, they were adapted into the comics and television cartoons for some time. Now, though, many artists have stopped drawing him with flippers for hands, and it seems to be more of a characteristic that can change depending on the storyline, and what the artist needs the Penguin to be.
It would make sense for Gotham to get rid of the flippers, especially if they're going for a grittier, more realistic approach to the material. The description does leave room for Cobblepot to have a physical deformity, as it would likely not have any bearing on his employment, but it seems as if they are veering away from the "circus freak" backstory for the Penguin, in favor of having him climb the ranks of the criminal underworld, much like he did in the original comics. Like with his nose and stomach, there is still plenty of time and room in the storyline for him to develop the flippers later on, whether through some sort of tragic accident, or a conscious decision on his part. Since we're still unsure of exactly how far ahead of Batman's storyline the events of Gotham will take place, the writers have a lot of room to play with the different histories and personality traits in order to find one that works best for the story they wish to tell.
From the looks of it, choosing the Penguin to be the main villain of Gotham bodes well for the future of the series, as it gives them a great deal of possibilities in terms of plot and character development. As a character, the Penguin is eccentric enough to be compelling and unpredictable, and his different histories allow them to pick and choose the qualities that they need as they need them. At the same time, he is one of the few sane villains in the Batman universe, which makes it easier to ground him in a more realistic universe. Since the protagonist of the show is Gordon and not Batman, the villain needs to be someone he can play well off of, and since Gordon is generally more straight-laced and grounded in reality than Batman is, it helps to have a villain who can exist in that same realistic universe. Batman being a superhero allows for the villains to be more off-the-wall, but since Gordon is a police officer, it helps to have an antagonist who isn't a complete cartoon.
Part of the reason that the Penguin was left out of Nolan's films is because he wanted to make a point about the decline of humanity, which he did through a universe that was full of anarchy and chaos, both physical and mental. Because the Penguin is sane and more interested in furthering his own personal and business goals rather than causing chaos for chaos' sake, he doesn't quite fit in that universe — but that is exactly what makes him perfect for the universe of Gotham, which will allow him to grow from a low-level criminal into the super villain that we all know and love. The show already has a full-season order, which means the writers can get creative with how much they reveal of the Penguin's transformation, and how quickly, and watching his career progress alongside Gordon's will help give the show some dramatic tension, especially since we already know what the final result of that transformation is.
With the reveal of Taylor as the Penguin, it seems like Gotham is striving to create its own Batman mythology, one that not only looks at what turned Bruce Wayne into the Caped Crusader, but one that also tracks the way that Gotham City transitioned from your average, seedy metropolis to a haven for criminals, crawling with some of the most insane and unhinged characters in comic book history. Choosing to start tracking that journey with the Penguin is an unexpected choice, but it's one that will likely pay off for the show in the long run.
Follow @hollywood_com
//
Follow @julesemm
//

HBO
Hannah: Art vs. Work
It’s the struggle to which every aspiring artist can relate: devote yourself altogether to the craft or take the “sell-out route” and compromise your creative integrity with a paying gig in the corporate world. At least that’s one way to look at it — the perspective Hannah adopts when she signs on for an advertorial position at GQ magazine, realizing quickly that she might have just cemented herself in a lifelong position of artistic bankruptcy.
Two weeks prior, Girls had us rattled over the discovery that Hannah was capable of some dark behavior (and, the really rattling thing, that we might be too). This week’s episode retreads this territory, but in much more comfortable waters. Instead of horrifying duplicity, we’re treated to a taste of Hannah’s self-involved immaturity. To reiterate, anyone in Hannah’s position this week is likely to entertain the same questions — “Is working for corporate America tantamount to abandoning my dreams? And if so, can I live with that?” — but the difference between us and Hannah (hopefully!) is our ability to ruminate logically on an idea before thrusting ourselves full force into the most destructive “solution.” Hannah insults her coworkers by insinuating that she, unlike they, is a real writer… only to learn that they have each made far more impressive creative accomplishments than she has, but work in advertorial writing because it pays the bills. Afraid of being stuck in the machine, Hannah hastily quits her new job… only to recoil moments later and beg for it once more. This is where we can (again, hopefully) separate ourselves from Hannah.
Although we have all dreamt of throwing caution to the wind and delving into our passion projects full force at the expense of responsible living, we don’t. Season 3 seems like it’s trying to push Hannah as the living id — everything we would do, say, think, and feel were not for our overwhelming sense of shame… serving almost the same function as another HBO great, Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm. But audiences seem to have very different degrees of appreciation for the two.
Ultimately, Hannah decides to stay at her gig, and Adam’s parallel storyline of giving up his own anti-establishment convictions to take an acting gig (yes, that’s how anti-establishment he was) is likely to breed some kind of conflict between the two down the line.
Ray and Marnie: A "Love" Story
I’ll be honest. After last week introduced the Ray/Marnie tryst, I thought this was going to be the weakest storyline we’ve yet to see on Girls. But in pitting the diametrically oppositional characters together in this episode, Girls shows us something interesting about each. Ray is the only person in the show’s central circle who has never bought into Marnie. And although Shoshanna did a pretty good job of invoking his vulnerable side, she wasn’t a rigid enough person to really challenge him on a visceral level.
Marnie, representing everything Ray hates but doing so with the conviction Shoshanna never had, seems to be making him reconsider his values and motives — admitting defeat and watching Real Housewives. Meanwhile, the icy and judgmental Marnie is herself challenged by the proverbially uncool Ray, brought down from a pedestal of standoffishness to provoke him into proving his interest in her and agreeing to have lunch with him despite her hostile insistence that he’s the antithesis of someone she’d want to spend time with. It’s interesting to see the pair attempt civility, since they are approaching one another from two incredibly distant points on the spectrum of the human value system. Ray and Shoshanna were different, sure, but it’s more interesting when the second party in a relationship is also from the planet Earth.
Shoshanna... Poor Shoshanna...
And now, with Ray creeping back into her mind and heart, Shoshanna is losing it — questioning her new life choices and taking up with a painfully stupid boy in the interest of getting her “serious relationship” phase on track. It probably won’t work out too well.

TV executives behind Glee are faced with re-branding the show or pulling it from U.K. screens after losing a copyright lawsuit on Friday (07Feb14). Broadcasters at 20th Century Fox were hit with legal action three years ago (11) by the owners of a chain of British comedy stores called The Glee Club.
They alleged the show's huge profile affected the business because customers were confused by the similarity in name and were "put off" from attending the venue.
On Friday, a judge at the High Court in London ruled Glee infringed on the comedy chain's copyright and "diluted and tarnished" the reputation of the business.
Now producers of the show are faced with the prospect of changing its name for U.K. broadcasts. They could also be liable to pay damages to The Glee Club owners.
The company's owner Mark Tughan launched The Glee Club in 1994 and now has four venues in England.
Speaking after the ruling, he says, "When Glee was first broadcast on national TV in the U.K. in early 2010, we knew that we had a problem. As a small independent company we had no way of competing against the advertising and marketing might of the Fox Corporation and knew that our brand and reputation for original and credible comedy and live music would be damaged.
"The confusion caused by the similarity of the names and branding in the same field of entertainment services has led to us losing custom and hampered our ability to establish our brand of cutting edge live comedy and music performances... Smaller independent businesses should take heart from today's decision, as it clearly shows that trademark infringements by large multi-national companies can be effectively challenged in British courts."

James Franco is many things — an actor, a writer, a painter, a professor, and a poet, to name just a few — but of all of his roles, he is possibly best at being the enigma that is James Franco. Therefore, it's fitting that in his latest film, Maladies, he plays to his strengths and takes on a role very similar to who he is as a person. In the film, Franco plays a recently retired soap opera actor name James, who has stepped away from the spotlight to pursue writing. He lives with his emotionally distant sister, Patricia (Fallon Goodson) and his good friend Catherine (Catherine Keener), and is attempting to write a great memoir of his life, a feat that is complicated by the fact that he has recently begun hearing voices.
Watching the trailer, it's easy to become a bit confused about the premise of the film, and the role Franco is playing. Is he playing James Franco, or just another actor who happens to be named James? Is this a period film, or is everyone just hipsters? What's his memoir about? We figure the best way to understand what's happening in the trailer for Maladies is to break everything down, question by question.
So, is James Franco just playing himself? Yes and no. Although he shares many of the same traits, like a desire to leave acting for writing and a long run on a soap opera, James is a fictional character. However, he is somewhat based on Franco, so technically, Franco's playing an adapted version of himself.
That makes no sense. Is he or isn't he? The short answer: not really.
When does this take place? In the 1960s, which explains why the trailer feels like a period film.
Did James Franco direct this? No, the film was written and directed by Carter. Just Carter. Like Madonna or McLovin, he only needs one name.
Well, okay. Who is Carter, then? Carter is a visual artist and a director who has worked with Franco in the past, on the film Erased James Franco. The two are good friends, and plan to collaborate on many more projects in the future.
So, James Franco isn't playing himself. Is Catherine Keener playing herself?No, she's playing a fictional character named Catherine. She is a cross-dressing artist who lives with James, and the two of them have a pact to finish each other's life work if one of them should die.
Is her character based on anybody? According to Franco, Catherine is a fictional representation of Carter, and the friendship that the two of them share. He told The Believer, "In Maladies the two characters make a pact that if one of them dies the other will finish the dead person’s work. I would be honored to make such a pact with Carter, because he understands me better than most." He has also called the director his "double."
Okay, so it's a movie about James Franco and Carter's friendship, but they're not playing themselves. Yep. You got it.
So where do the soap operas come in? James, the character, was an actor on a popular soap opera before he left to dedicate his time to writing.
Like James Franco, then? Yes. In fact, Franco took his role on General Hospital after Carter encouraged him to. It was part of his preparation for the film.
Is the James from the movie an actor on General Hospital?They haven't said what soap opera his character is on. But, probably not.
Is James' soap opera character named Franco, like the real Franco's was on General Hospital? Probably not, but that would be awesome, wouldn't it?
Tribeca Film/YouTube
What's with the sister?James and Catherine live with his sister, Patricia, who is described in the plot summary as being "mentally detached."
Does James have a "malady" as well? Yes. James has left his job because of a mental illness. The synopses have described him as having schizophrenia, although Carter said that he actually has "an unknown mental illness."
Does Carter have something specific in mind, even though it's not revealed to the audience? In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Carter said that he never wanted James to have one specific illness: "I studied The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the book that they republish every 10 years that lists all of the ailments that a person could have. It’s just for doctors. So I went through all of those and I wanted James' character to have every ailment in it, which is absurd, I know. That’s what he was suffering from, the unknown to everything at once."
So, if James has a "malady" and so does Patricia, does Catherine have one too? No. But she's gay, which isn't considered an illness now, but could have been in the 1960s, when the film is set.
Is that where the title comes from? Yep. See, you've got the hang of this.
Whose voice is that in the trailer? The narrator is voiced by Ken Scott, but the voice functions both as the voice in James' head and a narrator.
Something is bugging me. I feel like there already was a movie wherein James Franco played himself as a schizophrenic soap opera actor.You're right. Maladies will be the second movie of that description. The first was Francophrenia (Or Don't Kill Me, I Know Where the Baby Is), which James Franco and director Ian Olds put together from footage of the actor on General Hospital. It was weird.
Okay. I think I've got it. One more question. Shoot.
When will Maladies be released? On March 21.
Cool. One final final question: why wasn't Franco nominated for an Oscar for Spring Breakers? We may never know. Perhaps the Academy didn't appreciate the way he whispers "Spring breaaak" like the rest of us did.
Follow @hollywood_com
Follow @julesemm

Mia Farrow's son has sensationally accused the actress of poisoning her children against Woody Allen following his sister's renewed claims she was molested by the director. Dylan Farrow reignited the scandal in a piece written for the New York Times over the weekend (01-02Feb14) in which she detailed the alleged abuse she suffered at his hands as a seven year old in the early 1990s.
The claim, which Allen's representatives have strenuously denied, was initially voiced as part of the former couple's bitter custody battle, and the director's son Moses has now spoken out in defence of his father.
Moses claims his estranged mother turned her children against the moviemaker after he began a relationship with the actress' teenage adopted daughter Soon-Yi.
He tells People magazine, "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.
"Of course Woody did not molest my sister. She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don't know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."
Dylan has responded to her brother's claims, telling the publication, "This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family. My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life."
Moses fell out with his mother several years ago, and has since grown close to Allen and Soon-Yi, who wed the filmmaker in 1997.
Dylan's original claims were investigated after they surfaced in 1992, but no charges were ever filed.

Synopsis

The trials and tribulations of young love, honorable men, the antics of the upper class and the greed that lies just beneath the surface of Victorian London.

Financial wizard Augustus Melmotte arrives in London, inciting universal avarice and hopes of marriage among young men with an eye on his daughter, Marie. Profligate Sir Felix Carbury decides he'll have a try in this nuptial sweepstakes. Meanwhile, Felix's mother, Lady Carbury, hopes to restore the family fortune by marrying her daughter, Hetta, to her country-squire cousin, Roger.

Georgiana Longestaffe, snobbish but desperate to marry, arrives in London as a reluctant guest of the Melmottes. Melmotte has bought her family's country house as a dowry for Marie, who is to marry the aristocratic nonentity Lord Nidderdale, not Felix, whom Melmotte considers worthless. But Marie has money of her own and conspires with Felix to elope to America. Meanwhile, Paul is headed for Mexico to inspect progress on the railroad. Before leaving, he visits Hetta to declare his love.

In Mexico, Paul learns from Fisker that the railroad is at a standstill, since Melmotte is siphoning off the capital for other purposes. Paul returns to London determined to expose Melmotte, who is in the midst of a campaign for Parliament, paid for out of railway funds. Facing ruin, Paul nonetheless proposes to Hetta, who accepts. But when she learns about Winifred from Felix, she breaks the engagement.

With Brehgert asking for security against the declining railway shares, Melmotte tries to get Marie's money, which was put in her name as protection from creditors of an earlier swindle. Marie refuses, and Melmotte contemplates another way out.